Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Proxmox MCP Server

Proxmox MCP Server

by fredriksknese
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_pool

Read-only

Retrieve detailed configuration and status of a specific resource pool in Proxmox by providing its pool ID.

Instructions

Get pool details

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "poolid": "<poolid>"
    },
    "name": "get_pool"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
poolidYesThe pool ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'Get pool details' is consistent but adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., error handling, return format). With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise at 3 words, conveying the core purpose efficiently. While more detail could be helpful, it avoids verbosity and is front-loaded, earning a 4.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read tool with one parameter and strong annotations, the minimal description is sufficient. It covers the essential purpose, though it does not elaborate on return values (no output schema, so that omission is acceptable).

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% coverage with a description for 'poolid', so the description adds no additional parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is justified as the schema already handles it.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Get pool details' uses a clear verb ('get') and resource ('pool'), effectively distinguishing it from 'list_pools' which would return multiple pools. The specific scope of a single pool by ID is implied but not explicitly stated, so not a perfect 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_pools'. There is no mention of prerequisites or scenarios, leaving the agent without direction for selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools